Dr. Kumar Rupesinghe has played many roles in his life, most of which
has been in marketing his punditry that has seldom yielded the desired
results. One of his noted exploits in political meddling resulted
in him being thrown out of Sierra Leone. He was accused of having
a hand in a failed coup and, consequently, he was banned by the Organisation
of African Union. Unfazed by such affronts to his integrity he keeps
popping up in the Sri Lankan scene with pretentious claims to know
the right recipe for peace. But as seen in his latest article, Collective
Rights and ISGA (published in LTTE website, please note) he is regurgitating
LTTE propaganda that the ISGA is way to advance peace. He first states
that the ISGA should be accepted as the basis for talks and then concludes
by saying that if the Sinhala ruling class engages in
transforming the state then everyone can live happily ever after.
Clearly, he wants to have it both ways. First accept the ISGA as the
basis for talks and then, yielding to the escalating demands of the
LTTE that are bound to follow  a habitual practice endorsed
by the likes of Dr. Rupesinghe -- transform the state to suit the
needs of the one-man rule in the north. This is the latest strategy
of the LTTE to shift the goal posts to make it easy for their goal-kickers
to score points that they cant grab with the gun. Any refusal
to accommodate the escalating demands is branded as giving too
little too late. If he knows his history he may realize that
he is merely parroting this overworked phrase used regularly by the
Tamils each time the Sinhalese ruling class went out of
their way to accommodate their grievances and their aspirations.
Parrots are conditioned to repeat noises taught by their masters.
They have never shown a talent for thinking on their two feet. Dr.
Rupesinghe, an obedient parrot trained in the LTTE cage, fancies himself
as an expert on conflict resolution if he mouths the line fed to him
by his latest masters in the Vanni.

Practically every line in his latest expression of punditry is a
repetition of the LTTE propaganda as seen in the following concluding
paragraph: In the last 50 years the state evolved to be only
a state for the Sinhalese state i.e. a Sinhalese hegemonic state.
The Sri Lankan state developed and created a highly centralized state
where resources were mostly concentrated at the center and in Colombo.
In the process of continuous under-development both sides have lost,
where the civil war became its end result. The challenge for the Sinhalese
ruling classes is to grasp this historic lesson and engage in transforming
the state and ensuring that the peoples in the NorthEast can control
and develop their own regions in freedom and security. If this happens
within a united Sri Lanka both sides will enjoy extraordinary economic
developments within an agreed Federal system. 

So what else is new, Dr. Rupesinghe? Any brainwashed child-soldier
of the LTTE could have said the same thing, perhaps with greater felicity.
It is this kind of pap dished out by the pro-LTTE pundits that has
polarized the two communities and reinforced the intransigence of
the northern Tamils. He argues as if the concentration of resources
for development in Colombo affected the Tamils exclusively and not
the other communities. In what planet was he living when the JVPers
first took up arms  long before the Tamil youth  raising
the slogan : Colombata kiri, apita kakiri? The uneven development
of the economy has been recognised by even undergraduates. But to
give it a racist twist is to indulge openly in an act of intellectual
onanism that seems to be one of his common habits. Put simply, he
is lying through his teeth when he presents the underdevelopment of
the northern and the eastern regions as racist acts of Sinhala hegemonism.

Then again he repeats slavishly that since independence the
state evolved to be only a state for the Sinhalese state, i.e a Sinhalese
hegemonic state. Really? If so how did G. G. Ponnambalam take
industries to Jaffna under Sinhalese hegemonic state? How did Jaffna
maintain the high Personal Quality of Life Index (PQLI) exceeding
in some respects even that of the Western Province? Its infrastructure,
schools, hospitals and life span were rated to be higher than those
in the southern provinces. He should be given another doctorate if
he can explain convincingly and rationally how the Sinhala provinces
fell far below that of Jaffna under Sinhalese hegemony?

Predictably, he blames the Sinhalese hegemony for the
prevailing conditions in the north and the east. Has ever bothered
to ask why Prabhakaran has all the luxuries which the other Tamils
under him do not enjoy? More importantly, if Prabhakaran can purchase
in the international black market highly sophisticated military hardware
at exorbitant prices to kill his own people and others why cant
he buy some basic provisions to feed the people he claims to have
liberated? Which is more important? Killing or keeping his people
alive? If Prabhakaran is denying his own people the vast resources
flowing into Vanni from the expatriates, the NGOs, taxes, state funding,
extortion etc., why is Dr. Rupesinghe blaming the Sinhalese
hegemonists? Shouldnt he blame the hegemony of the one-man
rule in the Vanni for diverting valuable resources that can be used
for his own people to destroy his own people?

If his arguments are based on humanitarian grounds should he not
take into consideration the opportunities and resources available
to the LTTE to improve the PQLI of the Tamils without depending on
the generosity of the Sinhalese hegemonic state 
the only state according to the UNICEF that has provided basic, non-military
assistance to a rebel-held territory? Forget the Sinhalese hegemonic
state, for a moment. What was the LTTEs response to the
$.4.5 billion offer by the international community to alleviate the
suffering of the Tamil people? Prabhakaran even refused to participate
in it. Who should be blamed for that? The Sinhalese hegemonists?
Or will he state that the international community has given too
little too late? Whose agenda is Dr. Rupesinghe serving when
he dodges the hard realities and pass the buck to the Sinhalese
hegemonists?

He also makes the astounding statement that the Sinhala ruling
class (should) engage in transforming the state and ensuring that
the peoples in the NorthEast can control and develop their own regions
in freedom and security. Had he done a simple reality check
he would realize that the freedom and the security of
the north and the east is threatened not by the Sinhala ruling
class but by the one-man band who claims to be the liberator
of the Tamil-speaking peoples. The Tamils are hunted down like animals
and slaughtered in all parts. The Tamils find greater security in
living with the Sinhalese hegemonists than with the Tamil
fascists. The Muslims and the Tamils of the east too are refusing
flatly to be under the hegemony of Prabhakaran. They prefer the freedom
and security (however flawed it may be) under the Sinhalese
hegemonists. So in what cuckoo-land was he living when wrote
that propaganda tract for Prabhakarans latest demand for the
ISGA?

His stated objective is to transform the state so that
power could be transferred to a self-governing administration which
would enable the resources to be utilised for the under-developed
north and the east. But can he guarantee the freedom and security
he talks about under the latest Pol Pot of Asia, as defined
by the New York Times? When he knows that the man who is demanding
the ISGA powers  whatever the percentage  has never observed
or respected human rights, rule of law, pluralism, liberalism or democracy
on what moral basis is he recommending the transfer of power to Vanni?
If it is under the principles of freedom, or security
can he provide the readers the necessary facts and figures about the
availability of these fundamental democratic factors in the Vanni?
Unable to defend the crimes against humanity, war crimes, the obscenities
of force conscription of children in to the one-man rulers unwanted
war, he swiftly puts the blame on the Sinhalese hegemonists
 the one and only scapegoat of the likes of Dr. Rupesinghe.
His so-called intellectual defence is quite simple: when you have
no argument just blame it on the Sinhalese. All of which leads to
the simple question: when is he going to grow up and think like an
adult?

On the issue of human rights he takes a devious route. He blames
the intellectuals for focusing attention only on the LTTE killings
and then, with some sly footwork, rushes to defend collective rights
of people living not only in the north and the east but also
the peoples living in the Hill country. Here he proceeds to
pin-point the denial of the linguistic right of the Tamil-speaking
peoples in the South  He adds: Although the Tamil
language is a national language, the state has failed to provide for
the reasonable use of Tamil in the Administration. The denial of peoples
to use their own language in the pursuit of their business and education
is a gross violation of a person's fundamental rights.

In saying this he is merely recycling the Tamil propaganda and he
expects the readers to take him seriously. If he had a firm grasp
of the political history of the nation, he would know that this is
the same cry raised by the Sinhala youth when they took up arms on
the issues of discrimination, particularly on the issue of language.
They claimed that they do not have the sword, meaning
the power of the English language which continues to rule the nation
despite Sinhala and Tamil being made the official languages for nearly
five decades. But he is quite happy to give this issue a racist twist
as if only the Tamils are affected. Then again, can he give us an
estimate of how many Sinhalese can expect to get a reply in Sinhalese
from the Vanni? His naked bias stands in utter contrast to his insistence
on a holistic approach. Every issue he has cited makes it clear that
he is nothing more than a one-eyed Jack who cannot see beyond his
nose stuck in the Vanni.

Furthermore, with a grandiose generalization he proclaims that the
denial of peoples right to use their own language in the pursuit
of their business and education is a gross violation of a persons
fundamental right. This is neither original nor profound. When
S. W. R. D. Bandaranaike introduced the Sinhala Only Act, overthrowing
English, he was doing precisely that: restoring the fundamental right
of the majority to conduct business with their elected government
in their mother tongue. He restored the same right to Tamils in his
Tamil Language (Special Provisions) Act. But the Westernized apes
ganged up with the elitist Tamils and condemned him as a chauvinist.
Ironically, in the latest words of Bandaranaikes ex-son-in-law,
history has come full circle to justify the restoration of the lost
rights of the people by Bandaranaike after five centuries of colonialism.

It is also rather bizarre, if not comical, to read him accusing the
Sinhalese ruling class of the last fifty years. He seems to
have forgotten that he crept into the Sinhalese ruling class
when he married Bandaranaikes daughter. In his residence abroad
he made it known to all foreign visitors that he was the son-in-law
of Mrs. Bandaranaike by placing a huge portrait of hers at the entrance.
He was also a leading and servile apparatchik of Mrs. Bandaranaikes
Sinhala regime. He battled for the Sinhalese ruling class
until he was thrown out of his marriage bed, somewhat like in Sierra
Leone. Now he is in bed with the fascist ruling class in the Vanni.
All said and done Mrs. Bandaranaike, like other Sinhala prime ministers,
preserved the democratic framework intact, despite attacks on this
structure by left-wing rebels and right-wing coups. But, predictably,
Dr. Rupesinghe loses his memory when he tumbles in the air performing
political somersaults to please his latest master. This time it happens
to be Prabhakaran. Whos next, Dr. Rupesinghe?

Consider also his racist twist in highlighting the plight of the
fishermen in the north and the east who, he says, have been harassed
by the Navy. He says that they undergo immense difficulties in running
their day-to-day lives due to several resistances imposed by the Sri
Lanka Navy. Fishermen have been killed or injured by the navy during
fishing even after the ceasefire. Fishermen were also harassed and
their nets and fishing boats were damaged, he says. Not surprisingly,
even as he was writing this, the brutal action of LTTE against the
Tamil fishermen of the Gurunagar has conspired to undermine his accusation
leveled at the Sri Lanka Navy. Here are extracts from the Hindustan
Times of September 1, 2004: Since August 30, the LTTE is facing the
wrath of the fishermen of Gurunagar in Jaffna for not allowing them
to fish close to the LTTE's territory on the southern side of the
Jaffna lagoon off Pooneryn. Fishermen, who approached the Pooneryn
on the night of August 30, were shot at by the LTTE, which had designated
that area as a "High Security Zone", much like what the
Sri Lankan Armed Forces had done in many parts of the Jaffna peninsula.

In the firing, fisherman Tharmanayagam was injured in the leg, and
a boat caught fire . The angry fishermen came back to retrieve
Tharmanayagam, but the LTTE overwhelmed them, and took ten fishermen
and three trawlers into custody. The next day, the irate fishermen
stoned the Gurunagar political office of the LTTE .. The LTTE
(like the Sri Lankan Navy) wanted the fishermen to keep a two to five
kilometre distance from the shore. Meanwhile, local Catholic priests,
Fr Justin and Fr Jeyasegaram, tried to resolve the issue, but this
has borne no fruit till date. But the fishermen were not in mood to
listen, Fr Jeyasegaram said. They wanted the LTTE's political wing
leader, SP Tamilselvan, to come to Gurunagar and meet them.

Embarrassed by the firing and the subsequent prolonged agitation,
the LTTE has clamped a news blackout. The Tamil media had been

told not to report the incident and the developments. This resulted
in the fishermen holding a protest demonstration in front of Uthayan

What more proof is needed to convince Dr. Rupesinghe that he is drifting
closer to the asylum of the mentally retarded? Realities have a nasty
way of rubbishing self-proclaimed pundits who have failed to fulfill
their task even as servile propagandists. Dr. Kumar Rupesinghe should
give up his disreputable profession of manufacturing excuses for fascists
if he is to regain his sanity and self-respect which he lost in Africa
and in Sri Lanka.